I have seen a little bit of to and fro on the ‘get armed / right to have guns’ scenario and this little problematic verse from Luke 22:36 thrown in:
But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.
The issue with the Bible is that it does not give us a set of rules, a checklist that we can tick off. Checkbox with ‘buy a sword’ is not how it works. We have to wrestle with the Bible, and eventually these issues are issues of faith. How do I read it in the light of the call to follow the Lamb wherever he goes.
So what thoughts on this verse? I am not swamped in books here so cannot even say ‘the Bishop says…’
1. The times are changing is the context of the question. Remember when I sent you out – no sword, no provision and all that? Did you come out of it OK?
“When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” (22:35)
That was then… now you need to expect something different (‘but now’). This is not a time of being accepted but of being rejected.
2. The immediate reason for the instruction is in the verse that follows the sword instruction:
For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.”
So a very plausible explanation is that there was a necessity of having some weapons among the arrested band of disciples so as there was guilt – transgression (and certainly transgression of the Sermon on the Mount) – that could be put on them. If this is the reason once Jesus found out that they had two swords he said – ‘enough we don’t need any more than that’. Just enough evidence but certainly not enough to respond in violence to the accusers.
And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.”
Jumping forward when Peter did use the sword, presumably one of the two, Jesus very quickly responded with his rebuke of Peter:
And when those who were around him saw what would follow, they said, “Lord, shall we strike with the sword?” And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus said, “No more of this!” And he touched his ear and healed him. Then Jesus said to the chief priests and officers of the temple and elders, who had come out against him, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs? When I was with you day after day in the temple, you did not lay hands on me. But this is your hour, and the power of darkness.” (Luke 22:49-53)
The rebuke in Matthew is even stronger
And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?” At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples left him and fled. (Matt. 26:51-56)
So if Jesus is literally saying we have enough swords so don’t go and buy any more (‘It’s enough’) the reason for the swords could well have been on let’s give them some evidence. The rebuke when the sword was used was absolutely clear. ‘Put your sword back in its place’.
In John 18:36 we have:
Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”
So again it is clear that violence was eschewed by Jesus. Whatever he meant by the sword was not ‘get armed’ and certainly not ‘the kingdom is under threat so be armed to defend it for righteousness’ sake!’
There might even be one more possible way in to the Luke passage. What if Jesus was provoking the disciples to a higher understanding? What if they were to make a response of ‘but we take your teaching seriously and we are not planning on buying a sword’? Maybe that is why Jesus is not simply saying two swords are enough, but maybe in response to the ‘we have two’ that he is somewhat exasperated with their lack of kingdom response and he comes back with a ‘That’s enough of your nonsense’.
Anyway… no way can I consider this verse the endorsement for possession of weaponry.